Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 132

Walter Kuntner and Sandra Heinsch

The archeological evidence for Achaemenid rule over Herodotus' ninth satrapy can be described as decidedly wanting, compared to relevant historical sources. Few are, in fact, the architectural remains possessed of Achaemenid imperial character¹ that can be found within this territory. In this paper, it consists of the historical regions of Babylonia and Assyria conveniently demarcated by the frontiers of modern Iraq and tentatively partitioned according to Xenophon's Median Wall (Gasche 1995).

The most prominent finding is without doubt the Perserbau abutting the Südburg in Babylon (cf. Figure 70.4). This annex has been dated differently by various scholars: either to the reign of Artaxerxes II on the grounds of epigraphic evidence, or to the reign of Darius I on the basis of the red‐colored finish of the rubble‐and‐gravel floor. The closely related issue of the Anbauhof complex of the Südburg (Figure 17.1), as possible additional evidence of an Achaemenid imprint, has received less attention, despite the more far‐reaching consequences it might have for our understanding of Achaemenid Babylonia (Gasche 2010). Gasche's approach discusses firstly the characteristic layout of this complex's reception suite (RS), whose congruence with the RS of Darius I's palace at Susa (Figure 15.6) led him to suggest the re‐dating of the Anbauhof to that king's reign. Secondly, he calls attention to the RSs' openings, onto the courts of the Anbauhof and Westhof respectively, occurring with only minor variation in all three palaces in Babylon, yet which are missing at Susa. This fact additionally prompted Gasche to take into consideration the re‐dating of the Westhof complex to the reign of Cyrus the Great, and thus to propose a new chronological framework for the architectural history of the palaces of Babylon (cf. Amiet 2010).

Figure 17.1 The so‐called Südburg of Babylon.

The problematic aspect in Gasche's (2010: p. 458) reasoning is the assumption that the occupation layer of the rebuilt Anbauhof complex was once raised together with that of the Westhof complex, in order to merge with the uppermost pavings of the court of Nebuchadnezzar II's Haupthof (henceforth shortened as Nebuchadnezzar). In fact, based on this assumption, he considers the brick rubble containing the Neriglissar cylinders to be the constructional underpinnings of the new western palace wings, installed after that reign.

There is, however, no archeological proof for this assumption. The idea that the whole palace area was raised by Nebuchadnezzar to the same level goes back to Koldewey's (1931: pp. 75–77) attempt to explain the purpose and, above all, the condition of the mudbrick wall delimiting the Haupthof to the west. According to him, the fact that this wall was built from mudbricks could only mean that it represented a temporary stage of construction. However, connecting the Westhof and Haupthof via the vaulted corridors would have been too big an effort for a mere passing phase of construction. This temporality can be excluded all the more safely because of the remains of mudbrick walls, found in the northwest corner of the Haupthof, considered by Koldewey a sanctuary of the Achaemenid period. In fact, the latter lay immediately above the paving of Nebuchadnezzar, slightly overlapping the northern ramp. From this, it may be concluded that the ramp system continued to be used at least until Achaemenid times.

The picture thus emerging is rather one that shows the brick pavings of the four western courts lying at different levels up until the Achaemenid period. These heights coincide with the downward sloping gradient of Nebuchadnezzar's uppermost paving, made of stamped, 50 cm square terracotta tiles running between the Südburg – from which it was accessible through several gateways – and the inner city wall.² In this respect, the brick rubble containing the Neriglissar cylinders can hardly be considered the underpinnings of the Anbauhof, which was, according to Gasche, rebuilt at a higher level in post‐Neriglissar times. Therefore, it seems rather that the brick rubble was not put in place till the construction of the Perserbau, when it served as the underpinnings for the continuation of its red‐colored floor, in order for it to link up with the brick pavings in the eastern Südburg complexes. There, the double protome column capital of Achaemenid type signals, at least, the maintained use of this occupation layer until that time.³ It is only due to this episode of construction, that the split‐level building design of Nebuchadnezzar's Südburg was abandoned, obliterating the Anbauhof and Westhof complexes.

This hypothesis explains, with equal success, the distribution of the Neriglissar cylinders across several rooms of these complexes and, more effectively than Gasche's proposal, their location within a selection of layers across the compound's multiple strata of brick rubble (cf. Koldewey 1931 : p. 106).

Nevertheless, the basic idea proposed by Gasche remains attractive, in particular relating to the foundation walls of the gateway leading to the Persischen Kiosk, insofar as he suggested that they were built of brick rubble (Koldewey 1931: Pl. 20 and 32). This building technique is well attested in the Achaemenid period. It is then, in this sense, certainly conceivable that the building material was obtained by dismantling the Chaldean palace walls, as suggested by Gasche, thus relocating Neriglissar's cylinders. However, this does not necessarily coincide in time with the construction of the Perserbau.

But, all in all, the evidence from the Anbauhof is intricately complex because of its fragmentary nature, and is self‐contradictory on a case‐by‐case basis. Architectural details are sometimes selectively described, and not always entirely conferrable to the situation shown in the plans and vice versa, or because details visible in the plans, such as the previously mentioned brick rubble foundations, are not always described in the report. As a result, the true extent of this typologically characteristic feature within the Anbauhof complex is unclear, particularly as regards to the RS. The question, whether this layout represents, in Babylon, an Achaemenid conception, or an Achaemenid‐period emulation of a long‐standing residential concept, cannot be conclusively deduced.

Irrespective of the quest for Achaemenid imperial architecture, the written sources and artifacts found on the Kasr clearly attest to the maintenance of the Neo‐Babylonian palaces, and, in particular, to that of the Hauptburg by the Achaemenid kings and their satraps. The Kasr archive of Belshunu vividly illustrates the central role which the building's infrastructure had on the Kasr, and which it must have played in the economy and administration of “Babylon and Across‐the‐River”; this is well reflected, for instance, in the so‐called Babylon silver hoard (Reade 1986). The fragments of the Babylon version of the Behistun relief‐inscription of Darius I can likewise be placed in this historical context (Seidl 1999).

Such an idea of continuity, based on written attestations as well as on inferences from the archeological findings, basically applies to any structure used in Neo‐Babylonian times (see now Baker 2012). Their putative disruption in Achaemenid times was, for the most part, simply postulated on the basis of the uncritical quotation of classical accounts, or, as in the specific case of Babylon, considered in passing only while concentrating on other questions.

The city walls of Babylon are a telling example of this attitude. Since the beginning of field research, this structure has been perceived as one of the most outstanding and fascinating monuments of “Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon,” whose image was so vividly implanted on European mind both by Biblical metaphors, and by Herodotus' detailed description. The persistence of its character as a fortification into Parthian times was, no doubt, already recognized by the German excavators, but extraneous to the pursued exposure of that preconceived image of Babylon. Indeed, the extensive maintenance efforts under later kings are thoroughly discernible in the archeological documentation. The problem, in retrospect, is that it is hardly possible, on the basis of the existing documentation, to date them more precisely within their Late Babylonian horizon.⁴

The main reason for scholarly concern about the defensive integrity of the city walls in Achaemenid times is, however, the abrupt interruption of the mudbrick walls northeast of the Ninmah temple. Because this feature is located next to a cut‐off meander of the Euphrates, scholars have assumed that the disruption was caused by the shift of the Euphrates' riverbed east of the Kasr. The date of this event in the early Achaemenid period was chiefly substantiated through reference to Herodotus' and Ctesias' descriptions of Babylon (Wetzel 1930: p. 77). Though Wetzel (1930: p. 21) certainly described the presence of mud and alluvial sediments at the bottommost levels, he failed to prove that they actually overlaid the city walls. There is nothing to disprove that this meander developed far earlier (contra Bergamini 2011: pp. 26–28, Pl. 5).⁵

The critical reappraisal of the German excavations' evidence corroborates this interpretation, for it proves that the interruption of the wall was already extant before the time of Nabonidus (Heinsch and Kuntner 2011: pp. 512–520). This segment of the city wall might, therefore, never have been completed, or even planned by Nebuchadnezzar to connect to the eastern line of fortification. One reason for the abandonment of this segment's construction might have been the building of the Osthaken, which continues the eastern line of the inner city walls up to the Sommerpalast in Babylon, making its completion superfluous (cf. Lippolis et al. 2011: p. 6). But it is also conceivable that this segment was restricted ab initio, in order solely to reinforce the quarter of Ay‐ibūr‐šabû when it was elevated by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Pedersén 2011: pp. 14–18); a possibility already considered by Koldewey (Figure 17.2).

Figure 17.2 Reconstructed view of the building complexes in the quarter of Ay‐ibūr‐šabû (Koldewey 1913: Fig. 43).

The ancient classical accounts on the relationship of the Achaemenid kings to the Babylonian temples had an even more profound impact on the historicization of these archeological records than the above. The reassessment presented by Kuntner and Heinsch basically criticizes the previous, biased interpretation, firstly, of the consistency of Neo‐Babylonian religious architecture as an indication of its ephemerality and, secondly, of the absence of building inscriptions after Cyrus the Great as a willful refusal by the Achaemenid kings to act as temple provider. The absence of building inscriptions has also been interpreted as proof for the dissolution of the Babylonian temple institution within the early Achaemenid period.

The temples at Babylon and Borsippa give evidence of a continuous and strict compliance to Neo‐Babylonian architectural and cult traditions into the Seleucid period. During the Achaemenid period, no significant breaks, let alone violent episodes of destruction, are visible, even though these cities represented the main strongholds in the revolts against Xerxes in 484 BCE. Wherever breaks were identified in the brickwork, they signaled the complete rebuilding of the temple maintaining the existing layout with considerable accuracy.

It can, therefore, be deduced that the lack of royal building inscriptions might indicate a shift in the manifestation of Babylonian kingship ideology during the Achaemenid period. This privilege of providing for the temples might have been conferred to high‐ranking personnel of the temple administration, as happened, for instance, in the cases of Anu‐uballit Nikarchos and Anu‐uballit Kaphalon in Seleucid times. Needless to say, such a situation clearly hampers any attempt to identify the individuals who sponsored the rebuilding of the temples, and their maintenance. However, the archeological situation has only recently become subject to a more permissive, yet nevertheless cautious, interpretation of the archeological records, in reassessing the stratigraphy of construction in regard to the Achaemenid period (Kuntner and Heinsch 2013). Even now, however, this reassessment suggests anything but a standstill in Babylonian religious architecture. On the contrary, there are indications suggesting the Hürdenhausanlagen (Heinrichs 1982: pp. 283–335) to be an innovation of the Achaemenid period, or to have at least become the standard layout concept from that time onward, complying with, if not quintessentially fulfilling, the ideals determined by the “archetypal cult‐center” of Esagila at Babylon (cf. George 1999).

In this specific context, the ziggurat Etemenanki of Babylon requires special mention. The poor state of preservation of Etemenanki, and its alleged close connection to the rubble mounds at Homera, have, from the very beginning, animated scholars to take “Koldewey's paradox” as the striking proof for the accuracy of classical narratives; namely, the destruction of the ziggurat by Xerxes and the successive leveling of the ruin by Alexander the Great for his planned but never accomplished rebuilding. Those archeological arguments put forward to advocate this view were based on the preconception that the remains excavated in the plain called Sahn are vestiges of a once entire and intact ziggurat (George 2010).

The archeological situation contradicts, however, the historical view in several instances. Firstly, the evidence of the leveled mudbrick core speaks against the distinction of three superimposed ziggurats dated, respectively, to Esarhaddon, Nabopolassar, and Nebuchadnezzar. These remains give proof of just one mudbrick core. Secondly, the foundation level of the first stage encasing the mudbrick core lies some seven meters lower than Nebuchadnezzar's precinct wall (Bergamini 2011: p. 23, fn. 6). This point does not, by itself, provide the basis for a valid argument against a date in the first half of the first millennium; but it does raise the possibility of much earlier dates, for which there exist written attestations of building activities. Thirdly, the argument that the ziggurat might have sunk is contradicted by the evidence from Borsippa, where the layers abutting the bottommost brick layers of the mantle were still lying horizontally, or were even curved upwards slightly. On the other hand, visible subsidence, of up to 2 m, affected the mudbrick core of the ziggurat at Borsippa (Allinger‐Csollich 1991: p. 439, Fig. 26, p. 457, Fig. 34, p. 478). The absence of comparable subsidence affecting the mudbrick core at Babylon suggests that the remains uncovered in Sahn never towered much higher than they do today, or at least than they did before they were leveled in Sasanian/Islamic times. As a result, the remains of Etemenanki can best be identified with Nabopolassar's ziggurat. As stated by his son, this construction could only be continued to a height of 30 cubits, but remained, ultimately, unfinished (Kuntner and Heinsch 2013).

Finally, continuity is also reflected by the domestic architecture (Baker 2010). Research continues which is attempting to link changes in the design of dwellings to specific historical events. Predictably, such approaches remain controversial (Heinsch et al. 2011).

Of far greater interest to the issue of simultaneity, and to considerations of the durability of layouts in Babylonian architecture as a mirror of “social dimensions,” are the results of the excavations at Tell Abu Qubur and Tell Mahmudiyah (Gasche 1995: pp. 207–209). The house partly unearthed at Mahmudiyah maintained a principally traditional Babylonian layout, despite being newly founded between the late fifth and late fourth centuries BCE. This evidence of continuity stands in clear contrast to the examples from Babylon, Nippur, and Ur, where the Achaemenid period architecture evolved from a Neo‐Babylonian precursor. The Abu Qubur building, on the other hand, is characterized by two “salles à quatre pilasters,” situated north and south of the central court, and dating to the same time period as Mahmudiyah. Noteworthy in this context is Gasche's suggestion that the antithetic arrangement of the halls at Abu Qubur might represent a stage of development in said evolution. Basically, this suggestion picks up the introductory remarks on the date and originality of the RS in Babylon. Although the question of originality cannot be conclusively settled, it nevertheless seems to echo the situation observed in the field of religious architecture, where long‐standing building concepts were adapted in Achaemenid times, and developed their own distinctive architectural features.

Viewed in this light, the archeological evidence for Achaemenid rule over Babylonia is not meager, but hardly unentwineable from the Late Babylonian horizon, since neither the beginning nor the end of the Achaemenid period can be delineated by a stratigraphic horizon. On the other hand, this situation raises the question of whether such a distinction would be at all useful for a better understanding of the development of material culture. The latter has, in fact, so far been described as a gradual change over time, from a more Babylonian to a more Hellenistic fashion, and as marked rather by the accentuation of characteristics than by sudden breaks. Such a situation, it is clear, should not be regarded solely as the outcome of an inadequately understood Late Babylonian stratification.

In contrast to the situation in Babylonia, this problem was originally addressed in the archeology of the Neo‐Assyrian Empire, with the result that an Iron Age terminology was adopted parallel to the historical terminology, to emphasize the autonomy of pottery production from political breaks, including from the aftermath of the fall of Assyria in 614/612 BCE. Nevertheless, Iron Age terminologies still continue to be classified along political lines (Hausleiter forthcoming). This becomes particularly clear in the distinction between a “Neo‐Babylonian” and an “Achaemenid” post‐Assyrian period (cf. Curtis 2005).

However, since Curtis' seminal works, new results have been published, calling for an inquisitive reassessment of the view held therein, which pronounces the destruction of the Assyrian capital cities to have been both profound, and the following re‐occupation of an “impoverished nature” (cf. Kreppner forthc.).

As regards the first aspect, it is remarkable that the renewed Italian investigations at Fort Shalmaneser determined a much less violent destruction, than was described by the English expedition, of the building and its adjacent fortification to have taken place. On the contrary, both clearly show constant efforts of restoration and maintenance, so that the excavators even wonder whether these facilities did not remain functional within the Neo‐Babylonian administration of Assyria (Fiorina et al. 2005: p. 95).

The palaces doubtless never reached their former splendor again; however, this should not be seen as an indubitable sign of an impoverished populace as well. It is equally conceivable that the imperial, and mostly military, administrative facilities had become redundant in light of the new political situation of Achaemenid times, so that their repair and maintenance was no longer necessary. On this question, however, a better knowledge of the sequences of settlement of the capital city's areas, as well as of the chronological order of the post‐canonical eponyms, would be desirable. This is because, firstly, the correlation of some horizons of destruction with the Median‐Chaldean assaults in 614 and 612 BCE proved, most recently, to be, at the very least, questionable (Miglus forthcoming; Taylor et al. 2010), and, secondly, because the assignment of most of the post‐Assyrian traces to the Neo‐Babylonian period is chiefly based on the preconception that the “uniformity of pottery” could not have spanned a period of time longer than a generation. It has become clear that such a notion of restricted continuity can and should no longer be advocated (van Ess et al. 2012).

In this context, the evidence of phase H of the Achaemenid occupation of the Burnt Palace and Ezida Temple complex in Nimrud is most conspicuous (Curtis 2005: pp. 180–181), but, at the same time, also controversial. Provided that the current stratigraphic correlation is correct, it would, in fact, entail the re‐dating of the mudbrick temple façade “decorated with the ‘niche and reed’ type” from the Neo‐Assyrian to the Achaemenid period (Oates and Reid 1956: p. 37, Pl. V, 2 and Pl. VIII): it is true that in the section of the street between the Burnt Palace and the Nabu Temple, the foundation trench of the dressed limestone substructure is drawn as having been deepened from the surface of level 7. However, in this stratigraphic context, the building process has interpretative priority over the interface determination, which means that the pitt‐filling (level 6) of the foundation trench should be correlated correctly with the overlaying level 5, and with the corresponding drain. In spite of this, both are attributed by the excavators to phase H. In this context, it is also remarkable that the Achaemenid period phase H has also been ascertained in the shrine of Nabu, in the form of a trodden mud level, thus proving that the building was still in use. It goes without saying that such a far‐reaching re‐dating needs many more arguments than a reappraisal of the interpretative periodization of a small profile. But, on the other hand, it exemplifies how strongly archeological interpretation is biased by historical contextualization in terms of what is plausible.

It is to be hoped that the ongoing archeological investigations in the East Tigris region (Ur 2012), and in particular at Erbil, will provide new data for an improved understanding of Achaemenid Assyria, which might extend beyond the issue of the persistence of Assyrianizing pottery production (van Ess et al. 2012). In this context, it is important to note the increasing use of GIS (geographical information system) applications and remote sensing data processing, which aims for improvement of archeological research at key sites and landscapes within Babylonia and Assyria, in the hope of an early resumption of large‐scale systematic excavations.